Portfolio Volatility Estimation Relative to Stock Market Cross-Sectional Intrinsic Entropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting stock portfolios and assessing their relative volatility risk compared to the market as a whole, market indices, or other portfolios is of great importance to professional fund managers and individual investors alike. Our research uses the cross-sectional intrinsic entropy (CSIE) model to estimate the cross-sectional volatility of the stock groups that can be considered together as portfolio constituents. The CSIE market volatility estimate is based on daily traded prices—open, high, low, and close (OHLC)—along with the daily traded volume for symbols listed on the considered market. In our study, we benchmark portfolio volatility risks against the volatility of the entire market provided by the CSIE and the volatility of market indices computed using longitudinal data. This article introduces CSIE-based betas to characterise the relative volatility risk of the portfolio against market indices and the market as a whole. We empirically prove that, through CSIE-based betas, multiple sets of symbols that outperform the market indices in terms of rate of return while maintaining the same level of risk or even lower than the one exhibited by the market index can be discovered, for any given time interval. These sets of symbols can be used as constituent stock portfolios and, in connection with the perspective provided by the CSIE volatility estimates, to hierarchically assess their relative volatility risk within the broader context of the overall volatility of the stock market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".